Would the concept of gender, as opposed to sex, be considered gnostic? I am not confident about what constitutes gnosticism, but I think I have read that it embraces a degraded view of the material world including the physical bodies of human beings. The Christian perspective does seem to confirm a hierarchy of constituent parts (that is, the soul is more important than the body), but it also asserts the integration of body and soul as fundamental to out nature as human beings and teaches us that both are good. If the division of a person's sex from his feeling of his sexed social role is indeed a form of gnosticism, how did Christians combat this heresy with arguments that could be followed and accepted by non-Christians?
You do not have to continue to respond, if the thread becomes tedious. I thought your response was good. Do you think, then, that what needs to be established is that the bodies of the people who are seeking transformation are actually healthy as they are? It seems right that medical procedures can be performed to help what is ill or lacking to become well and whole. The form of the soul is not corrupted or misinterpreted by such procedures (within limits). People with gender dysphoria seem to believe that their bodies are not conforming to the forms of their souls -- so do you think that the point of argument should be: "no, you err because your bodies are, in fact, healthy? Your members are not diseased; your features are not misshapen?" If this is so, how do we persuade towards a consensus of what health is?
Would the concept of gender, as opposed to sex, be considered gnostic? I am not confident about what constitutes gnosticism, but I think I have read that it embraces a degraded view of the material world including the physical bodies of human beings. The Christian perspective does seem to confirm a hierarchy of constituent parts (that is, the soul is more important than the body), but it also asserts the integration of body and soul as fundamental to out nature as human beings and teaches us that both are good. If the division of a person's sex from his feeling of his sexed social role is indeed a form of gnosticism, how did Christians combat this heresy with arguments that could be followed and accepted by non-Christians?
You do not have to continue to respond, if the thread becomes tedious. I thought your response was good. Do you think, then, that what needs to be established is that the bodies of the people who are seeking transformation are actually healthy as they are? It seems right that medical procedures can be performed to help what is ill or lacking to become well and whole. The form of the soul is not corrupted or misinterpreted by such procedures (within limits). People with gender dysphoria seem to believe that their bodies are not conforming to the forms of their souls -- so do you think that the point of argument should be: "no, you err because your bodies are, in fact, healthy? Your members are not diseased; your features are not misshapen?" If this is so, how do we persuade towards a consensus of what health is?